51 N.Y.2d 963 (1980)
For a zoning variance based on hardship, ‘uniqueness’ does not require the subject parcel to be the only one affected by the hardship condition, but rather that the condition not be so widespread that granting variances to all similarly situated properties would fundamentally alter the zoning district.
Summary
Douglaston Civic Association, Inc. v. Klein addresses the ‘uniqueness’ requirement for zoning variances in New York. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a variance for enclosed tennis courts on swampy land zoned for residential use. The court held that uniqueness doesn’t mean the property is the only one affected by the condition, but that the condition isn’t so widespread that granting variances to all similarly situated properties would alter the zoning district. The key factors supporting the variance were the land’s inability to yield a reasonable return as zoned, the minimal impact of the tennis courts on the neighborhood, and the swampy nature of the property, coupled with the limited 15-year duration of the variance.
Facts
An owner sought a variance to use swampy land, zoned for residential use, as enclosed tennis courts for 15 years. The Board of Standards and Appeals granted the variance. The land could not yield a reasonable return as zoned because construction costs for residences were three times the potential sales price. The proposed tennis courts would not negatively impact the neighborhood’s character, traffic, or pollution. The owner’s difficulty arose from the swampy nature of the property.
Procedural History
The Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York granted a variance. The Appellate Division affirmed the board’s decision. The Douglaston Civic Association appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the ‘uniqueness’ requirement for a zoning variance requires that only the specific parcel of land, and no other, be affected by the condition creating the hardship, or whether it is sufficient that the hardship condition is not so generally applicable as to materially change the zoning of the district if variances were granted to all similarly situated properties.
Holding
No, because uniqueness does not require that only the parcel of land in question be affected by the condition which creates the hardship. What is required is that the hardship condition is not so generally applicable throughout the district as to require the conclusion that if all parcels similarly situated are granted variances the zoning of the district would be materially changed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that a strict interpretation of ‘uniqueness’ would be impractical. It cited Beatrice Block Club Assn. v Facen, 40 Mich App 372, 380-382, noting that uniqueness does not demand that only the specific parcel be affected. Instead, the court emphasized a comparative approach, requiring an assessment of the prevalence of the hardship within the zoning district. The critical inquiry is whether granting variances to all similarly situated parcels would fundamentally alter the district’s zoning scheme. The court acknowledged that other swampy parcels existed in the area. However, it deferred to the Board’s finding of uniqueness, stating that it could not conclude, as a matter of law, that the Board’s determination was arbitrary or capricious. The court also highlighted the confiscatory nature of the current zoning in relation to the subject parcel and the time limit imposed on the variance, further justifying its decision. The court stated, “What is required is that the hardship condition be not so generally applicable throughout the district as to require the conclusion that if all parcels similarly situated are granted variances the zoning of the district would be materially changed.”